Here’s the entire thing if you don’t want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Assuming you aren’t trolling; LMG:

    • Hired a professional HR firm
    • Gave them access to their internal records and communications
    • Gave them free reign to talk to whoever they need
    • Tasked them to work out what happened, and provide them with instructions to improve their processes

    If that isn’t the right thing to do, then what is?

    • M500
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I guess people just wanna be mad with him I mean what I think what they want is that they would find that the company was actually at fault and they actually did something wrong and then I guess someone gets fired. I think it’s what they wanted to hear, but honestly, this is the best outcome . 

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Isn’t the classic phrase that HR is not your friend? They are there to manage you as a resource and to protect the bottom line.

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Absolutely, which is why they hired external consultants to do the review - they are a neutral third party, with a reputation of fairness to uphold

          • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’d love to hear how you managed to convince someone to do complex, detailed work over 8 months without paying them

    • olosta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      They said at the time “We are committed to publishing the findings”. This has not happened yet as far as I know, and it’s critical. Accusations were specific, the investigation findings can’t be vague.

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        Those are the findings of the report - what kind of specifics were you expecting?

        • olosta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          6 months ago

          A break down of all the allegations with what evidence (testimonies, electronic messages…) they took into consideration before coming to the conclusion that the claim was false.

          • FoolHen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s not gonna happen. They can’t publish private business and personal communications, names and data with the public. The point of hiring an external company is that they audit the case and come to a conclusion, and for the company to be reputable they must not be biased. If you don’t believe the conclusion why would you believe the details? They could also be manufactured or cherry picked.

              • bitfucker@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Anonymized is still risky as people speech has a pattern. All it takes is one nutjob to dox and now everyone has a problem.

                Edit to add further information why anonymization is hard. US survey and statistics data is jittered in a random way to protect the privacy since it is possible to backtrack the statistics to the person who answers the survey. I think it was explained in a minutephysics video.

                That is a whole government department dealing with sensitive data and mathematical proof that their survey result is anonymous. What can a law firm do to guarantee anonymization? Remember, guarantee is a strong word here as it carries legal implication for the firm. If the firm cannot guarantee anonymization, then the company would not want to be liable when shit hits the fan.

          • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            6 months ago

            Would you give candid testimony if you knew that your boss - let alone the general public - were going to see it later?

            The breakdown you are wanting shouldn’t be generally available within LMG, let alone publicly available.

        • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think you need to sit back and reevaluate your position in this situation. You have no right to that information, and even if you did, nobody involved would care about your opinion.

          • Crismus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I never said it was my right. I said that if they want people to believe them, they will need to show the report.

            If not, I treat them as I would any other money first company with a clueless owner. I probably won’t be the only one turned off.

    • Bartsbigbugbag
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hired a professional firm that specializes in defending employers against employees and has a history of anti-union action. This isn’t some bootstrap law firm, it’s a multi billion dollar giant that makes its money by suppressing labor unrest.

    • applepie@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Hr are the worst bootlickers out there… Inherently biased againt the employee.

      They are not even pretending here.